Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[Oli 1]

[spitfire 0]

In case no one has posted this read from the research council of Norway.

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/News/Pal+...t/1203528336519

paragraphs 2,3 & 4 and the closing para are of particular interest. Gee, do you think this guy knows anything about the sun and solar radiation.

by the way I wish we were haviong this conversation over a couple of beers. If that is not too politically incorrect.

gotta get back to the rocks

[Oli 1]

Not half as much as I do. It's 90 degrees here in Oakland, and despite having just had a very arduous 2 hour lunch break I really would like to be outside with a cold one.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Not half as much as I do. It's 90 degrees here in Oakland, and despite having just had a very arduous 2 hour lunch break I really would like to be outside with a cold one.

You wanna go outside with Kimi?

[Oli 1]

Well I'd imagine we'd have a fun time. For about 10 minutes until I died of alcohol poisoning.

[maure 1]

You fanatism is becoming absurd, my friend.

Dear oh dear Maure. I've learned that most people refuse to ever reassess their views, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against them is.

The evidence is neither overwhelming nor even exists to _amount_ to yours or anyone's certainty.

As an academic, I had thought perhaps you might do better. A hush hush, european moment in the woods seems to matter more to you than the overwhelming public evidence that there is a consensus.

If, as an academic, I were to believe fanatically, as you do, I would be finished. No more research, all is known. No need to investigate, all has been discovered.

It is telling that you think that the anectode I told represents acquisition of knowledge. I shows how gullible you are. I do not have a _need_ to believe anything. You do.

If you were less fanatical, you would understand that _different_ scientist have _different_ views and that THAT _is_ science. But, sure, keep on trying to discredit everyone you don't agree with while, those like me, allow ALL to have and pursue their scientific agendas.

Feel free to show me the exact mechanism by which the sun is supposed to alter our climate. In the meantime anyone can read a recent paper by one of Spitfire's supposed deniers of climate change, Dr Sami Solanki. He is an expert in solar science, and his paper here states quite clearly that the sun can only be responsible for less than 30% of recent climate change. He considered all the postulated mechanisms by which the sun might possibly affect us, and he says that as CO2 levels rise further the sun will become even less relevant. There are many more papers such as this one, which I will happily provide for your delectation.

Feel free to prove your theory beyond a shadow of a doubt any time. Then procede to convince the rest of us.

Even if you were to be correct, btw, you will find that the vast majority of scientists are not as gullible as you are. Expect a fight.

The rest of your points are the usual straw man nonsense.

From guy that claims the sun does not matter _at_all_ when talking about Earth... brutally hilarious.

You might like to read the link above too. This has all been investigated by solar physicists and there is a consensus in that field that solar activity is not the main factor in recent climate change.

Notice how this makes a mockery of all the claims of bias that we've heard. How come most solar physicists don't want more money to research climate change and predict solar activity?

As usual, you understand nothing about the scientific process.

Those "vast", "most", "everyone" are a huge telltale of ignorance.

Don't you really get it?

Honestly, how can you insist that something as complex as weather can be completely understood? I know you are not that stupid... although I appreciate that you make yourself one for my amusement. That much is true.

[Max Mosley 2]

In case no one has posted this read from the research council of Norway.

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/News/Pal+...t/1203528336519

paragraphs 2,3 & 4 and the closing para are of particular interest. Gee, do you think this guy knows anything about the sun and solar radiation.

by the way I wish we were haviong this conversation over a couple of beers. If that is not too politically incorrect.

Yeah I could do with a drink. Prune juice for me.

Your article simply reiterates what I've been saying all along:

The vast majority of researchers concur that anthropogenic [ie 'human'] activity has affected the earth's climate.

It's hard for me to respond to any scientific point you want to make because it's not clear what that guy actually believes. There are a ton of papers showing that since about 1970 the sun's activity most likely can't explain the warming that has been observed. For periods before 1970 the sun was definitely important, however. The distinction is important because of misleading statements like the following,

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has determined that the earth's temperature has risen by about 0.7

[maure 1]

Of course I _must_ take all scientific data into consideration. That's what makes me an academic and you a fanatic.

I am, right now, finishing a paper that will shortly be published. I have around my desk some 75 papers (and I can't say how many books) pertinent to the particular subject I'm working on. Please make an effort an understand this, there is a lot of contradictory data, there are a lot of studies that "prove" opposite things, there are many scientist looking for "cause" in different places. It is only natural.

I could, easily divide the existing research into two heaps, argue that one heap discredits the second (or viceversa) and then conclude that all scientists agree in whatever subject I want. Naturally, that would make my research rubbish. But I don't publish rubbish and I don't conceive any subject as a militant cause. I cannot. It's ridiculous to do such a thing.

The certainty you have, the certainty you apparently need, is simply not there. If it is true that you believe doctors to be absolute certain about everything (for you can only conceive everything or nothing), you are asking for a lot of trouble, my friend, a lot.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

The problem with science is that it is not "fact" as humans are involved. And humans:

• Are not always objective
  
• Cheat
  
• Make mistakes
  
• Make things up
  
• Are inclined to cherry pick when researching/peer-reviewing to get results that fit their beliefs
  

Anyway, I come back to the original point of the thread - we've had a lot of debate about other things, but remember - NASA is tweaking historic temperature data and has been doing so for some time. Moreover, the net outcome of their tweaking does not come to 0 (which using probability calculations it should), it favours global warming.

Irrespective of whether the data is deliberately being biased or has happened by accident/incompetence, their tweakings are affecting the final results of all GW studies. As a scientifically-minded person, this troubles me and makes me ask how can we rely on any subsequent studies based upon this data when we don't even know 1) if it is accurate and 2) what effect these tweakings will have?

Murray, Oli if this tweaking is taking place - you should be as concerned as I am about it....

[AleHop 0]

The problem with science is that it is not "fact" as humans are involved. And humans:

• Are not always objective
  
• Cheat
  
• Make mistakes
  
• Make things up
  
• Are inclined to cherry pick when researching/peer-reviewing to get results that fit their beliefs
  

And humans tend to agree too much on very complex subjects when they fail to find a convincing (scientific) argument that really explains the problem. It makes them feel more secure and those who disagree fear to show it publicly. Scientists are strongly pushed towards a positive comment about Global Warming or they'd rather be quiet.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

An old article, but nonetheless interesting, esp. the comments about economists and consensus - Murray take note!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...16/ccpers16.xml

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Oh and this one: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

A petition signed by 31,000 American scientists to say that they do not follow the consensus on GW.

So, Murray, Oli you want to play the numbers game - as I understand it, that represents about 15 times more scientists than contributed to and support the IPCC report....

Oooh is that a consensus?...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

And finally....

The real truth behind global warming revealed. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has revealed a link between the number of pirates and global warming:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Proven, by latest figures showing that Somalia which has the lowest carbon outputs of any country and the highest levels of pirates....

http://www.venganza.org/2008/04/14/somalia/

[AleHop 0]

An old article, but nonetheless interesting, esp. the comments about economists and consensus - Murray take note!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...16/ccpers16.xml

Interesting article. We are at an economic crossroads in Spain and I wish our goverment read more articles like that and less rubbish about Global Warming, Alliance of Civilizations, antinuclear pamphlets, etc.

[maure 1]

The problem with science is that it is not "fact" as humans are involved. And humans:

• Are not always objective
  
• Cheat
  
• Make mistakes
  
• Make things up
  
• Are inclined to cherry pick when researching/peer-reviewing to get results that fit their beliefs
  

I would also add intellectual inmaturity.

There are times, I read a paper and it is evident that the conclusions are too sweeping. I cannot avoid thinking of younger, less experienced researchers doing their best to explain themselves and failing when it comes to proportion.

Not much _at_all_ in science fits perfectly... which is one of the reasons why the most important thing to derive out of study is the data (if the methodology holds) and the most stupid thing is to borrow the conclusions, even when these actually follow from the data.

And humans tend to agree too much on very complex subjects when they fail to find a convincing (scientific) argument that really explains the problem. It makes them feel more secure and those who disagree fear to show it publicly. Scientists are strongly pushed towards a positive comment about Global Warming or they'd rather be quiet.

It's an issue of specialization, actually. The less one knows about a subject, the more coarse are one's appreciations and the easier it is to accept simple answers. It comes down to a jejune understanding of the problem to begin with.

Grad students find _THE_ answer to everything nearly every week. Laymen, every day. Politicians, every second. Interestingly, none of them are even able to identify the relevant questions...

There is very little appreciation among the uninitiated for the excruciating complexty of true scientic work... 99% of scientist must be wrong 100% of the time, for 1% of the scientists to make a substantial contribution 0.01% of the time.

[AleHop 0]

99% of scientist must be wrong 100% of the time, for 1% of the scientists to make a substantial contribution 0.01% of the time.

Sadly true.

[Medilloni 6]

Oh and this one: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

A petition signed by 31,000 American scientists to say that they do not follow the consensus on GW.

So, Murray, Oli you want to play the numbers game - as I understand it, that represents about 15 times more scientists than contributed to and support the IPCC report....

Oooh is that a consensus?...

Maure mentioned the 'layman', which I'd certainly class myself as, but that was an interesting read Meani Wan (against others that support the opposite view). As long as there's so much disagreement amongst academics, I'm concerned we'll take action based on flawed research, action that could be hard, if not impossible to reverse.

And.... It's possible that some don't like threads like this - I love them but I'd like to thank you, Oli, Murray, Spitfire, Maure, Quiet One and all the others for keeping it entertaining, and certainly, there's plenty of work gone into it (I'm being serious btw!!!)

[maure 1]

Sadly true.

It's a natural part of the process of scientific discovery.

I didn't mean to say that 99% of the scientists are wrong because they are _necessarily_ lacking in capacity or anything like that. When one investigates, one gathers data. Most science is about that. At some point, one formulates a working hypothesis to account for this data. It is these hypotheses what turn out to be failures 99.99999% of the time. But they are a necessary part of the process. It is impossible to advance without them.

If a collection of hypotheses survives the process of accounting for existing data, one builds working models to predict data that is still unavailable. Again, these models fail 99.99999% of the time. If, by the slimmest chance, a collection of working models survives, you might, just might, have a theory.... a theory that relies on the appropriateness of several models which in turn each relies on the correctness of several hypotheses.

And, when the theory fails, you need to go back and revise the methodology with which you gathered data for the error is often to be found in the assumptions made early on but that only become apparent once you are well on your way.

Now the punch line. What I've just said is a brutal simplication of the scientific process that does not even take into account the incredible difficulty of _finding_ the correct questions to ask. A great deal of effort is spent answering questions that are not valid to being with...

Thus, give me certainty and have me laughing... all in one.

[AleHop 0]

Now the punch line. What I've just said is a brutal simplication of the scientific process that does not even take into account the incredible difficulty of _finding_ the correct questions to ask. A great deal of effort is spent answering questions that are not valid to being with...

And that's for a 'normal' investigation, when it has a big impact on the mass media it's much worse more complex.

[maure 1]

And that's for a 'normal' investigation, when it has a big impact on the mass media it's much worse more complex.

Yes. I spoke about this early on. When politics intrude, a great deal of things go belly up. Of course, it is part of the game, for better and for worse. Governments manage inmense budgets. Research requires resources, sometimes huge amounts of resources. These days, you don't have a head of department (of any relevant university) that is not skilled in politicking. It's necessary to get grants, etc.

In general, though, intrusion of entertainment and political leeches is no big deal. They come and go quick. But every so often, you get one of "those" topics and... well, it can become a mess. I mentioned earlier how linguistics got kidnapped for a couple of decades and how, if you didn't "hail" to Chomsky, your very employment or tenure was on the line. Now, it is GW. It's the hot potato (pun? Yep), the entire planet is doomed. Those guys with fresh PhDs in related subjects are gonna have to sell their souls to only-god-knows-what to get a foot on the door...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Well its also affected by available funding. I work in a university and I've noticed how the grants in my area (technology) have changed to have "green-ness" more included. i.e. if your project demonstrates even as a side effect a +ve impact on GW you get money/more money. We have to apply for some of these grants as funding is in short supply and you are expected to do so by the uni to keep the money rolling in to pay the bills/salaries. Government and NGOs set the policies behind these grants.

So even if someone in a uni were to be completely objective about climate change, your projects are driven by this pro GW agenda - sort of happens by stealth.

[pumpdoc 2]

If I fart on a continuing basis (and I do) do that contribute to GW?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Maure mentioned the 'layman', which I'd certainly class myself as, but that was an interesting read Meani Wan (against others that support the opposite view). As long as there's so much disagreement amongst academics, I'm concerned we'll take action based on flawed research, action that could be hard, if not impossible to reverse.

And.... It's possible that some don't like threads like this - I love them but I'd like to thank you, Oli, Murray, Spitfire, Maure, Quiet One and all the others for keeping it entertaining, and certainly, there's plenty of work gone into it (I'm being serious btw!!!)

Thanks Meds, well.... irrespective of what the true situation is, I am just more keen that lots of people get to see some opposing arguments. So much in the media is focused down the pro-GW route, I think its healthy to publish other info and get some debate going.

And I think the bottom line is to have a healthy degree of cynicism about most media claims either pro or anti....

When the icebergs all melt, I'll invite you all to my newly beach-fronted property - Meds you can bring the dancing girls; Oli can bring the beers and Murray can bring, er... his robo-willy

[maure 1]

Well its also affected by available funding. I work in a university and I've noticed how the grants in my area (technology) have changed to have "green-ness" more included. i.e. if your project demonstrates even as a side effect a +ve impact on GW you get money/more money. We have to apply for some of these grants as funding is in short supply and you are expected to do so by the uni to keep the money rolling in to pay the bills/salaries. Government and NGOs set the policies behind these grants.

So even if someone in a uni were to be completely objective about climate change, your projects are driven by this pro GW agenda - sort of happens by stealth.

Yep, it's an old story... whether to publish a study eliminating "undesirable" data (thus fabricating results) or not to publish at all.

It can get quite hard.

[AleHop 0]

If I fart on a continuing basis (and I do) do that contribute to GW?

If you fart on a continuing basis it will help the icebergs all melt but Meanioni will not invite you to the newly beach-fronted property.